Our entire government, BOTH SIDES, has completely failed the American people. The corruption is so blatant and it feels like there’s no way to course correct. It’s depressing.
I want to see Bondi endure the same horrid treatment we’ve had to witness law enforcement inflict towards those that do not have wealth or high social status. That’s when I know Congress is being serious in their threats.
Arrest them and lock them up. It’s called contempt. “The criminal offense of contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $100,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.” From wiki.
Nothing will happen because America is ruled by Trump and his sycophants, and we’ll be systematically destroyed if we actually try to do what needs to be done.
If I ever become president, as a white guy, I’d LOVE for her to be my spokesperson. Heck, I’d probably listen to her if she tells me I’m going out of line.
Oh damn, the answer was right in the next comment.
“The criminal offense of contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $100,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.”
So, she or someone else pays that pathetic pittance and she walks out free?
When she doesn't show, congress will refer her to the DoJ to enforce compliance. The DoJ will promptly do nothing, and that'll be the end of it. Congress needs its own investigative and prosecutorial agency that answers to the legislative, not the executive branch.
At one time (and by the Constitution) the Judicial branch was independent of both the Executive and Legislative branches. In this regime, the Constitution isn't even regarded as a guideline if it is contrary to what they want to do, even though they call themselves Constitutional absolutists.
The entire government needs a completely separate agency that is solely responsible for making sure that the government complies with ALL laws of the country. And ENFORCES them. That's the big part that's missing.
The Judicial Branch can't be expected to run non-partisan if the fucking PRESIDENT gets to set all the judges. The Judicial Branch should be the only way to set judges. My expectation is that this mythical agency CAN'T be corrupted because even though it's a government entity, the government isn't allowed anywhere NEAR it. Can't influence it, can't change it, can't get rid of it. Like I said, mythical.
Last time I looked this up, both phrases have examples starting from the mid 1800s, thing is by far the dominant phrase used for many decades now. Also I don't think she ever actually had a first think, let alone is set up for another.
Don't promise them a good time lol they know nothing will happen to them which is sad because if it was one of us everyday ppl we'd be locked up without hesitation
Yeaaaaaah, if she declines to show up for a subpoena, then the House can vote to hold her in contempt... which only sends a recommendation to the DoJ to charge her. And Trump's DoJ simply won't do it.
I still think its important to put the contempt charge out there. This regime desperately wants people to believe they are untouchable. Assuming something wont hurt them without trying first is highly irresponsible and dangerous. Dont comply in advance
She won't show up, SCOTUS just ruled this week about this exact thing in favor of Steve bannon, he refused a subpoena from Congress and served jail time
Just because SCOTUS rules a certain way in one case doesn’t mean it applies as precedent across all future instances. A narrowly tailored ruling often applies just to that specific instance without creating a broader precedent.
The Supreme Court basically ducked the question, accepted Bannons flawed response (recognizing the Executive Branch’s “exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute”) while reaffirming that the lower court had ruled correctly and that Bannons argument that "my legal representative advised me not to attend" is not a valid defence. In short, fuckery but I can understand why SCOTUS took the easy route when arguing against this given the stakes.
From what I understood, they refered the decision back to the lower court which, because you know, Trump, might rule in favour of Bannon, thus possibly expunging his record and opening up the possibility for him to sue for wrongful conviction ($ 10,000,000,000 seems like a nice amount). But I just gather this from some Youtube vids I listened to, so may be (very) wrong.
The lower courts decision was challenged by Bannon - SCOTUS challenging Bannons argument that "following his legal advice not to attend" was not "willfully defying a subpoena" would potentially result in Trump intervening and creating a precedent that would cause significant legal issues to getting defendant's to appear in any US court. By passing it back to the lower court with a "the administration says don't prosecute" they retain the status quo with minimal effort. IANAL
Gerdalearnedme
Think
backrideup9
Just like y'all are still making Gym Jordan appear to testify, right? Right?
MikeRInternetTraveler
Oh no! Not contempt of Congress! Anything but that!
Didn’t SCOTUS just rule that contempt of Congress is completely toothless, with Steve Bannon?
ziralien
Hold these motherfuckers accountable. Fuck them all.
albakSPrince
the new rule is to subpoena the spouse too. bring in her husband, make him tell about their days in florida
dynamojoe
Bondi needs to testify. The DOW is still not back over 50k.
Snooj
Another *think coming.
unluckyandbored
She won't show. They'll do nothing about it.
CyberneticWhelk
If you don't throw Bondi in prison, it doesn't matter one bit.
jalcantara88127001
Her safety will be on kalshi before that happens
eastend666
Jail the bitch if she's in contempt. We're getting tired of this nonsense.
nimeton0
Newdonster
The turd will just pardon her
TheVillageGrouch9000
Nothing will happen as usual. The DoJ is now a criminal organization.
Gin3r1c
Our entire government, BOTH SIDES, has completely failed the American people. The corruption is so blatant and it feels like there’s no way to course correct. It’s depressing.
albakSPrince
we as voters need to accept our part in this mess.
Hovencl00f
Bondi is a criminal who did criminal things as instructed by her criminal boss.
JackingMeHoff
If she doesn't show Trump will pardon her like he did Bannon.
feelymcfeel
Can't wait for precisely fucking nothing to happen.
hungoveratworkguy
I want to see Bondi endure the same horrid treatment we’ve had to witness law enforcement inflict towards those that do not have wealth or high social status. That’s when I know Congress is being serious in their threats.
FinancialRavioli
Remind me of the consequences Gym Jordan faced for ignoring a congressional subpoena?
Aranon1183
That's the only peeny Bondi deserves!
DYLANLEE79
charondaboatman
Arrest them and lock them up. It’s called contempt. “The criminal offense of contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $100,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.” From wiki.
FelonyRaptor
So an almost severe slap on the wrist eh? That must really scare her.
CausticCake
Contempt of Congress is prosecuted by ... the DOJ. We have a broken system because Republicans prioritized party and politics over accountability
Nebbo
And who's going to enforce it? Their system's broken.
cyberninjaru
Nothing will happen because America is ruled by Trump and his sycophants, and we’ll be systematically destroyed if we actually try to do what needs to be done.
duktayp
Anyone ever pissed off a black woman before knows bondi in trouble https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTZjMDliOTUyNW9xaGphZnl0OWhyNGRrYzYzNWFocnYxYmRuZnV6ZHM1cXFweWhxdSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/nGGrda5ANZ4BpYMC90/giphy.gif
Firestar002
If I ever become president, as a white guy, I’d LOVE for her to be my spokesperson. Heck, I’d probably listen to her if she tells me I’m going out of line.
FelonyRaptor
What does held in contempt of Congress actually mean? What really happens when you're held like that? Anything? Something? Holding and contempting?
FelonyRaptor
Oh damn, the answer was right in the next comment.
“The criminal offense of contempt of Congress is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more than $100,000 nor less than $100 and imprisonment in a common jail for not less than one month nor more than twelve months.”
So, she or someone else pays that pathetic pittance and she walks out free?
PostalHeathen
When she doesn't show, congress will refer her to the DoJ to enforce compliance. The DoJ will promptly do nothing, and that'll be the end of it. Congress needs its own investigative and prosecutorial agency that answers to the legislative, not the executive branch.
Rijacki
At one time (and by the Constitution) the Judicial branch was independent of both the Executive and Legislative branches. In this regime, the Constitution isn't even regarded as a guideline if it is contrary to what they want to do, even though they call themselves Constitutional absolutists.
gobblinal
The entire government needs a completely separate agency that is solely responsible for making sure that the government complies with ALL laws of the country. And ENFORCES them. That's the big part that's missing.
darkslyde
thats a nice thought until it too gets corrupted by conservatives... because that is exactly what the judiciary was supposed to be.
gobblinal
The Judicial Branch can't be expected to run non-partisan if the fucking PRESIDENT gets to set all the judges. The Judicial Branch should be the only way to set judges. My expectation is that this mythical agency CAN'T be corrupted because even though it's a government entity, the government isn't allowed anywhere NEAR it. Can't influence it, can't change it, can't get rid of it. Like I said, mythical.
Sullivanish
*another think coming...
zOriginal
BackReggin
You're getting downvoted by morons.
somerandomusernamebecauseididntlikemyoldone
Last time I looked this up, both phrases have examples starting from the mid 1800s, thing is by far the dominant phrase used for many decades now. Also I don't think she ever actually had a first think, let alone is set up for another.
CaldariBob
Judas Priest says that argument is full of shit, and they're English.
AyatollahBahloni
Sullivanish
Just imagine all the downvotes that could have been yours!
taez555
Sounds like Bondi is about get a strongly worded letter condemning her not showing up.
sharK11
a harshly worded tweet about her
Useyourhead165
Don't promise them a good time lol they know nothing will happen to them which is sad because if it was one of us everyday ppl we'd be locked up without hesitation
BubblesTheFish
Jasmine Crockett SLAMS Pam Bondi in scathing tweet!
69Voltage
They’ve bumped it up to “harshly”
Zetor
Oldiewankenobie1
Maybe even "terse"
Jordan7831
And if that doesn’t work. A scathing op ed in the Sunday edition of some news paper
69Voltage
Whoa, dude, no reason to go nuclear
TheOvy
Yeaaaaaah, if she declines to show up for a subpoena, then the House can vote to hold her in contempt... which only sends a recommendation to the DoJ to charge her. And Trump's DoJ simply won't do it.
19marcurious57
'...the House can vote' and 'send a recommendation to the DoJ...'
LanceSackless
I still think its important to put the contempt charge out there. This regime desperately wants people to believe they are untouchable. Assuming something wont hurt them without trying first is highly irresponsible and dangerous. Dont comply in advance
Grendels2dCousinOnceRemoved
Or the house could send the sergeant at arms to go arrest her. Can't you just see Little Luziana Boy doing that.
TheOvy
I did forget about that... it would be an unprecedented move in modern times. I'd love to see it.
randomuser69420
She won't show up, SCOTUS just ruled this week about this exact thing in favor of Steve bannon, he refused a subpoena from Congress and served jail time
SerialChickenLover
Just because SCOTUS rules a certain way in one case doesn’t mean it applies as precedent across all future instances. A narrowly tailored ruling often applies just to that specific instance without creating a broader precedent.
pm1001
He did serve time too
DarkZalgo
And the current scotus has shown that precedent doesn't mean a fucking thing anyway.
RetrogradeLlama
Incorrect. Read the decision.
Neednoggle
Can you give us the cliff notes?
HashMaster9k
https://substack.com/@annepmitchell/note/c-239143101
CanisDirusTV
Trump's DoJ was dropping the issue.
RetrogradeLlama
They'd already filed to do so. Bannon already served a four month sentence.
SheepySleepySmuggler
The Supreme Court basically ducked the question, accepted Bannons flawed response (recognizing the Executive Branch’s “exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute”) while reaffirming that the lower court had ruled correctly and that Bannons argument that "my legal representative advised me not to attend" is not a valid defence. In short, fuckery but I can understand why SCOTUS took the easy route when arguing against this given the stakes.
Neednoggle
Thanks
ricpaul
From what I understood, they refered the decision back to the lower court which, because you know, Trump, might rule in favour of Bannon, thus possibly expunging his record and opening up the possibility for him to sue for wrongful conviction ($ 10,000,000,000 seems like a nice amount). But I just gather this from some Youtube vids I listened to, so may be (very) wrong.
SheepySleepySmuggler
The lower courts decision was challenged by Bannon - SCOTUS challenging Bannons argument that "following his legal advice not to attend" was not "willfully defying a subpoena" would potentially result in Trump intervening and creating a precedent that would cause significant legal issues to getting defendant's to appear in any US court. By passing it back to the lower court with a "the administration says don't prosecute" they retain the status quo with minimal effort. IANAL